alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 10-6532.

#### Sherry V. Shaw, Petitioner v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General.

562 U.S. 1142, 131 S. Ct. 906,

178 L. Ed. 2d 760,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 140.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Flea-borne Typhus | What You Need to Know

Flea-borne typhus is 

caused by bacteria found 

in infected fleas or their 

poop (also called flea dirt). 

Pets can bring fleas into 

and around your home.

Fever

CS310079A

Treat pets for fleas. 

Trash and food waste may 

attract rats and other pests 

to your home.

Muscle aches Nausea, vomiting, 

or stomach pain

Rash

Use EPA-registered insect 

repellent when outdoors.

Fleas can be found on stray or 

wild animals (such as cats, rats, 

or opossums) near your home. 

Flea-borne typhus

is treatable, so see

your healthcare

provider right away!

Keep rodents away from your home:

Seal up holes!

Trap rats and mice!

Clean up trash!

You can come into 

contact with fleas or 

flea dirt and not 

even know it.

Prevent contact

with fleas:

For more information, contact:

www.cdc.gov/typhus/murine/

See your healthcare 

provider if you develop 

fever, body aches, 

nausea, vomiting or 

rash after coming in 

contact with fleas or 

stray or wild animals.
#### *Mercer Island Sch. Dist., Petitioner, v. N. W. et al., Respondents,*

No. 92009-5.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 71419-8-1, April 13, 2015, 186 Wn. App. 939. *Denied*December 2, 2015.
# C_2014052EN.01003801.xml

| 22.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 52/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/38

---

Action brought on 27 November 2013 — Bimbo v OHIM — Cafe' do Brasil (Caffè KIMBO GOLD MEDAL)

(Case T-638/13)

2014/C 52/73

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Bimbo, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cafe' do Brasil SpA (Melito di Napoli, Italy)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul partially the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 September 2013 given in Case R 787/2012-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul partially the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 September 2013 given in Case R 787/2012-4;

| — | Order the other party, should it intervene, to bear the costs of proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the other party, should it intervene, to bear the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the verbal elements ‘Caffè KIMBO GOLD MEDAL’ in red, gold, white and black for goods in Classes 30, 32 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 4 037 909

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The Spanish trade mark registration No 291 655 for the word mark ‘BIMBO’ for goods in Class 30 and earlier well-known Spanish and Portuguese word mark ‘BIMBO’

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in part

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1), (2) and (5) CTMR

Pleas in law:

---
1 of 2 EPA’s Potential Reinterpretation of the Clean Water Act Provision Regarding Tribal Authority

– Intergovernmental Associations Meeting Tuesday, July 8, 2014

1:00

– 2:30 p.m. EDT Meeting Summary

EPA Presenters: Mark Rupp

– EPA, Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations Betsy Southerland, EPA Office of Science and Technology Fred Leutner, EPA Office of Science and Technology Participants: Alex Dunn

– Environmental Council of States ( ECOS )

Brend an Johns

- ECOS

Patrick Dolan

– National Governors Association (NGA)

Alex Whitaker

– NGA

Carlee Brown

– Western Governors ’ Association (W GA )

Chris Guard

– WGA

Laura Wilkeson

– WGA

Julia Anastasio

– Association of Clean Water Administrators ( ACWA )

Nat han Bracken

– Western States Water Council (WSWC) Tony Willardson

– WSWC

The meeting began with introductions, followed by opening statements by Mark Rupp and Betsy Southerland. Fred Leutner then gave a presentation, “Potential Reinterpretation of a Clea n Water Act Provision Regarding Tribal Eligibility to Administer Regulatory Programs,” available at EPA’s website, http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/wqs library/tribal.cfm

.

The meeting continued with an opportunity for questions and comments from participants. Several participants requested follow

- up meetings with their organizations and member states. EPA agreed to work with those organizations to set up such meetings.

The following is a list of questions and comments received from participants during the mee ting

. For each of the questions, the EPA presenters provided responses that were consistent with the presentation

materials and other information available

at http://wa ter.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/wqslibrary/tribal.cfm

. V iews and comments were acknowledged, and will be considered by EPA in developing the proposed rule.

• In general the reinterpretation sounds “eminently reasonable. ” What does EPA expect to

he ar back from the states?

• No tribes have the authority to establish TMDLs.

• There are similarities between the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act, except that there are more uses for CWA on tribal lands

, especially related to agriculture. Are there any instances of how non

- member fee lands would be affected by tribal WQS?2 of 2 • Has there been EPA outreach to individual state s, governors? W estern governors should

know that about this rule. The participant will follow up with Mark Rupp to ensure that

outreach happens.

• Participants indicated that case law citations surrounding the TAS reinterpretation would be helpful. (Subsequent to the meeting, EPA added a link to the EPA Environmental Justice Legal Tools Document , which contain s relevant case citations , to its website, http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/wqslibrary/tribal.cfm

. )
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 132 (Friday, July 10, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 37374]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18370]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP98-281-000]


Venice Gathering System, L.L.C.; Notice of Tariff Filing

July 6, 1998.
    Take notice that on June 30, 1998, Venice Gathering System, L.L.C. 
(VGS), through its operator Dynegy Midstream Services, Limited 
Partnership, tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
Original Volume No. 1, with an effective date of August 1, 1998:

First Revised Sheet No. 111
First Revised Sheet No. 179
First Revised Sheet No. 185
First Revised Sheet No. 186
First Revised Sheet No. 196

    VGS states that it is submitting these revised tariff sheets to 
incorporate the Gas Industry Standards Board (GISB) Version 1.2 
Standards adopted by Order No. 587-G. VGS proposes an August 1, 1998 
effective date for these sheets.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a 
motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-18370 Filed 7-10-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
No. 10-10611.

#### Anthony Charles Mohrmann, Petitioner v. California.

565 U.S. 841, 132 S. Ct. 153,

181 L. Ed. 2d 69,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5985.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Sixth Appellate District, denied.
No. 10-7181.

#### Leonardo M. Quinonez, Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

562 U.S. 1147, 131 S. Ct. 924,

178 L. Ed. 2d 770,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 483.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
*DLM 4000.25-4, April 09, 2022*

*Change 7*

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

**DEFENSE AUTOMATIC ADDRESSING SYSTEM**

**Page**

**FOREWORD**	F1-1

**CHANGE HISTORY**	H1-1

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**	T1-1

**REFERENCES**	R1-1

**ACRONYMS and ABBREVIATIONS**	A1-1

**CHAPTER 1	GENERAL INFORMATION**

C1.1.	AUTHORITY	C1-1

C1.2.	PURPOSE	C1-1

C1.3.	APPLICABILITY	C1-2

C1.4.	POLICY	C1-2

C1.5.	RESPONSIBILITIES	C1-2

C1.6.	PUBLICATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE MANUAL	C1-7

C1.7.	SYSTEM MAINTENANCE	C1-8

C1.8.	DLMS TRC AND ILCS PRC REPRESENTATIVES	C1-8

CHAPTER 2	DEFENSE AUTOMATIC ADDRESSING SYSTEM (DAAS)   OPERATIONS

C2.1.	OVERVIEW	C2-1

C2.2.	BENEFITS AND FUNCTIONS	C2-2

C2.3.	DLA TRANSACTION SERVICES CORE AND CUSTOM 

	SERVICES	C2-4

CHAPTER 3	CUSTOMER PROCEDURES

C3.1.	GENERAL	C3-1

C3.2.	DAAS COMPLIANCE	C3-1

C3.3.	MESSAGE PREPARATION AND TRANSMISSION	C3-1

C3.4.	REJECTS	C3-***2***

C3.5.	ARCHIVING	C3-***3***

C3.6.	MESSAGE RETRIEVAL AND RESUBMISSION REQUESTS	C3-4

C3.7.	MESSAGE TRACER ACTION REQUESTS	C3-4

C3.8.	POINTS OF CONTACT	C3-***4***

CHAPTER 4	DAAS PROCESSING

C4.1.	GENERAL	C4-1

C4.2.	MESSAGE PROCESSING	C4-***2***

C4.3.	MILS TRANSACTION PROCESSING	C4-4

C4.4.	X12 AND XML TRANSACTION TRANSLATION AND 

	CONVERSION	C4-***8***

CHAPTER 5	COMMUNICATIONS

C5.1.	INTRODUCTION	C5-1

C5.2.	ENVELOPING	C5-1

C5.3.	ARCHIVING AND SEMANTIC ERROR RECOVERY	C5-4

C5.4.	TRANSACTION ACKNOWLEDGEMENT / ENVELOPE ERROR 	REPORTING	C5-5

C5.5.	ADDITIONAL COMMUNICATION ISSUES	C5-***7***

APPENDICES

AP1.	DLA TRANSACTION SERVICES’ PROFILES 	AP1-1

AP2.	INTERNATIONAL LOGISTICS COMMUNICATION 	SYSTEM (ILCS) 	AP2-1

AP3.	DoD AND DLA REPOSITORY CUSTODIAN	AP3-1

AP4.	SPECIAL PROCESSING RULES	AP4-1

AP5.	LOGISTICS INFORMATION DATA SERVICES (LIDS)	AP5-1

AP6.	X12 CONTROL STRUCTURES AND SEPARATORS	AP6-1

AP7.	MATERIEL RECEIPT ACKNOWLEDGMENT REPORT 	BUSINESS RULES	AP7-1

***AP8.	NON LOGISTICS ELECTRONIC DATA INTERCHANGE (EDI) SUPPORT 	AND TRANSACTIONS	AP8-1***

**TABLES**

**TableTitle**

C1.T1.	DLMS TRC Representatives	C1-8

C1.T2. 	ILCS PRC Representatives	C1-10

C3.T1.	Authorized Transaction Formats	C3-2

C3.T2.	Points of Contact	C3-5

A6.T1.	X12 Control Structures	AP6-1

A6.T2.	X12 Segment/Element Separators	AP6-3

**FIGURES**

**FigureTitle**

AP7.F1.	MRA Report Business Rules	AP7-9

	T1-1 		TABLE OF CONTENTS
**DoD Supply Discrepancy Reporting (SDR) Committee**

**Meeting 06-1, December 6-7, 2006**

**HQC Conference Room 3501**

**Tentative Agenda**
No. 10-1468.

#### Dallas County, Texas, Petitioner v. Mark Duvall.

565 U.S. 823, 132 S. Ct. 111,

181 L. Ed. 2d 36,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5421.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 631 F.3d 203.
From: "Palazzolo, Michael A." <Michael.Palazzolo@alcoa.com>

To: Rochelle Boyd/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 01/26/2011 12:41 PM

Subject: Intalco Primary Aluminum Data

Rochelle,

I just learned that Intalco did not send you their corrections to the

Primary MACT data yet. They are still finalizing and say it will be

sent by early next week. 

Mike

Michael Palazzolo

Alcoa, Inc.

201 Isabella Street

Pittsburgh, PA 15212-5858

Ph: 412-553-4832
# C_2013207EN.01003901.xml

| 20.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 207/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 207/39

---

Action brought on 2 May 2013 — MHCS/OHIM — Ambra (DORATO)

(Case T-249/13)

2013/C 207/65

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: MHCS (Epernay, France) (represented by: P. Boutron, N. Moya Fernández and L-E. Balleydier, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ambra S.A. (Warsaw, Poland)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Declare admissible the here concerned appeal and enclosures; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare admissible the here concerned appeal and enclosures;

| — | Annul the Second Board of Appeal’s decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Second Board of Appeal’s decision;

| — | Condemn the OHIM and the intervener to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Condemn the OHIM and the intervener to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing a device of a bottle neck label and the word element ‘DORATO’ for goods in class 33 — Community trade mark application No 9 131 228

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative marks containing a device of a bottle neck label for goods in class 33

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.

Pleas in law:

---
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 134 (Tuesday, July 14, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 37877]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18653]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP97-724-000]


NorAm Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Site Visit

July 8, 1998.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or 
Commission) will be conducting a site visit for NorAm Gas Transmission 
Company's Line F Replacement Project in Caddo, Bossier, Webster, 
Claiborne, and Lincoln Parishes, Louisiana on Thursday and Friday, July 
16 & 17, 1998.
    Anyone interested in participating in the site visit or requiring 
additional information about the project may contact Paul McKee in the 
Commission's Office of External Affairs at (202) 208-1088. Participants 
must provide their own transportation.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-18653 Filed 7-13-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
# C_2016270EN.01001001.xml

| 25.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/10

---

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale regionale di giustizia amministrativa di Trento (Italy)) — Antonio Tita, Alessandra Carlin and Piero Constantini v Ministero della Giustizia, Ministero dell’Economia e della Finanze, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Segretario Generale del Tribunale Regionale di Giustizia Amministrativa di Trento (TRGA)

Antonio Tita, Alessandra Carlin and Piero Constantini

Ministero della Giustizia, Ministero dell’Economia e della Finanze, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Segretario Generale del Tribunale Regionale di Giustizia Amministrativa di Trento (TRGA)

(Case C-495/14) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure - Directive 89/665/EEC - Public procurement - National legislation - Fees for access to administrative proceedings in the field of public procurement - Right to an effective remedy - Dissuasive fees - Judicial review of administrative decisions - Principles of effectiveness and equivalence))

(2016/C 270/12)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale regionale di giustizia amministrativa di Trento

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Antonio Tita, Alessandra Carlin, Piero Constantini

Applicants:

Defendants: Ministero della Giustizia, Ministero dell’Economia e della Finanze, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Segretario Generale del Tribunale Regionale di Giustizia Amministrativa di Trento (TRGA)

Defendants:

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

Article 1 of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007, and the principles of equivalence and effectiveness must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation requiring the payment of court fees, such as the standard fee at issue in the main proceedings, when proceedings are brought in the public procurement field before the administrative courts.

---

(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2015.

1

---
AGENDA

Cooling Water Intake Structur e Coalition Meeting with EPA November 21, 2011
1:00 – 2:00

I. Introductions

II. DeMinimis Threshold for Impingement Requirements

a. Should be 50 mgd
b. Should be Based on Actual Flow
c. BPJ Permit Conditions d. Rules Should not Apply to Any Inta ke Where <25% is Used Exclusively for Cooling

III. New Units at Existing Facilities

a. Manufacturing
b. Offshore Platforms

IV. Impingement Standards for Facilities Greater than 50 MGD

a. Concerns with Existing Proposal b. Our Views on CEG Approach
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 133 (Monday, July 13, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 37550]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18496]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP98-636-000]


East Tennessee Natural Gas Company; Notice of Request Under 
Blanket Authorization

July 7, 1998.
    Take notice that on June 26, 1998, East Tennessee Natural Gas 
Company (East Tennessee), P.O. Box 2511, Houston, Texas 77252-2511, 
filed in Docket No. CP98-636-000 a request pursuant to Sections 157.205 
and 157.212 of Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 
CFR 157.205, 157.212) for authorization to operate as jurisdictional an 
existing delivery point facility that was constructed under Section 
311(a) of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (NGPA), under the East 
Tennessee's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-412-000 
pursuant to Section 7 of Natural Gas Act, all as more fully set forth 
in the request on file with the Commission and open to public 
inspection.
    East Tennessee states that it has recently constructed a delivery 
point (Rockwood Meter Station) under Section 311(a) of the NGPA for use 
in the transportation of natural gas under Subpart B of Part 284 of the 
Commission's regulations. Granting the requested authorization will 
enable East Tennessee to fully utilize this facility for all 
transportation services, pursuant to Section 311 of the NGPA and 
Section 7 of the NGA and will increased the transportation options of 
customers on East Tennessee's system.
    East Tennessee states that delivery volumes through the existing 
delivery point would not impact its peak day and annual deliveries; 
that the proposed activity is not prohibited by its existing tariff; 
and that it has sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed changes 
without detriment or disadvantage to its other customers.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after 
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to 
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of 
the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to 
the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefor, 
the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the 
day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed 
and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a 
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for 
authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-18496 Filed 7-10-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
No. 10-6293.

#### Latanya McCaslin, Petitioner v. Birmingham Museum of Art, et al.

562 U.S. 1173, 131 S. Ct. 988,

178 L. Ed. 2d 817,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 93.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 1031, 131 S. Ct. 571, 178 L. Ed. 2d 418, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 8694.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-2000
<CASH>                                             170
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   71,894
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                77,264
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 699,441
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          124,152
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,873
<OTHER-SE>                                    (77,594)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   699,441
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,021
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                80,165
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              34,084
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (113,228)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (113,228)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (113,228)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     $.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     $.01


</TABLE>
**BIC SDR IPT  Tentative Agenda**